"The Historian" wrote in message
...

The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever
confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word
'permission',
and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems
to
be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this
issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue.

The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view,
and then to make commentary on it.

This must mean Paul Truong is going to allow the USCF attorneys access
to his IP records.

Having already confounded the issue in his mind by inserting the word
'permission', Brennan now insists on what something 'must mean'. How he
should twice evolve his commentary from the statement before it, and why any
imperative 'must', is best known to himself. If he has comprehension
problems he should consult a philologist or stick to reading Winnie the
Pooh.

There is no new 'final response' by
Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen -
with
perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on
the consequences of declining to open up.

In other words, the latest final response, with empty threats.

That again is a paraphrase so obtuse that it almost defies belief anyone
could write it. If what Polgar and Truong are saying is 'open it up' and
others decline to do so, which was their own prediction, they merely refer
to the /content/ they made before. What is 'final' about it seems to me to
be how far they are willing to go to cooperate with anyone - and in fact,
what or who limits any other possible cooperation.

Quite obviously, if USCF say that materials may not be vented, based on
their legal advice, neither can anyone else access the same materials.

My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there]

Real titled players, or phony ones like yourself?

How would you know? You don't write about chess - 99% percent of your posts
here and elsewhere are about trashing people. More trash about more people
than the FSS ever did. Maybe 5 times as much? 10 times? How you can
possibly pretend any interest in caring about cyber-abuse or chess, is
again, a subject known only to yourself, and the reverend re-mailer, plus
one or two other people spinning for a living, instead on any attention to
subject matter.

With such a record, its nothing to any point to protest it! It is a
demonstrated record - as any one can see.

Phil Innes

all,
so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on
what
seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently,
I
feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads
here,
by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to
judgment.

That was, and remains, the issue.

Phil Innes